Who Said It?

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Edwards has very little chance as of now. Hillary has a commanding lead over everyone in the polls with Obama following. Other than a huge scandal or something big coming out I don't see how anyone other than Hillary gets the nomination.

Edwards has no chance because he's a blithering fool. He's running 4th in a lot of places, despite all the money he spent.

 

[SoCalDomer]

Actually, no, it's not. That's communism.

No, it's socialism. Communism builds on what socialism accomplishes, and cannot exist without socialism. It takes the power from the centralized government established through socialism and gives it to the community unit. But socialism comes first.

This is from wiki:

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that visualize a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation

Wealth redistribution = socialism.

Socialism and communism are spearated by small degrees along the political spectrum, but there are differences, mostly in the formof government that implements the socialist policies. Communism takes socialism and goes further.

Go here for a basic explanation of the differences between socialism and communism. Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production

From the article:

It must not be assumed, from the distinction between socialism and communism, that the political parties all over the world which call themselves Socialist advocate socialism, while those which call themselves Communist advocate communism. That is not the case. Since the immediate successor to capitalism can only be socialism, the Communist parties,-like the Socialist parties, have as their goal the establishment of socialism.

It is impossible for communism to follow capitalism. Socialism comes first. Communism is a form of government that can only arise after socialist objectives are accomplished. Since we are a capitalist society, the theories espoused by any politician in our society are socialist policies. They cannot be communist until they've established socialism.

There will never be a true communist government. Communism has never existed in modern history. USSR was not, nor is China now a Communist nation. Communism is a form of government that can never come into being due to the fact that absolute political power is need to impose the extreme socialism and to take that socialism to the next level. Since the powers that be are unwilling to give up that power, or unable to give up that power and maintain the communist objective, what really exists is a totalitarian society.

See, I did that without an appeal to authority, or my degrees, such as an MBA. Referring to authority of the person making the argument as weight for the argument is a fallacy, which renders your entire argument as false.

 

[KamaraPolice]

No, it's socialism. Communism builds on what socialism accomplishes, and cannot exist without socialism. It takes the power from the centralized government established through socialism and gives it to the community unit. But socialism comes first.

This is from wiki:



Wealth redistribution = socialism.

Socialism and communism are spearated by small degrees along the political spectrum, but there are differences, mostly in the formof government that implements the socialist policies. Communism takes socialism and goes further.

Go here for a basic explanation of the differences between socialism and communism. Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production

It is impossible for communism to follow capitalism. Socialism comes first. Communism is a form of government that can only arise after socialist objectives are accomplished. Since we are a capitalist society, the theories espoused by any politician in our society are socialist policies. They cannot be communist until they've established socialism.

There will never be a true communist government. Communism has never existed in modern history. USSR was not, nor is China now a Communist nation. Communism is a form of government that can never come into being due to the fact that absolute political power is need to impose the extreme socialism and to take that socialism to the next level. Since the powers that be are unwilling to give up that power, or unable to give up that power and maintain the communist objective, what really exists is a totalitarian society.

See, I did that without an appeal to authority, or my degrees, such as an MBA. Referring to authority of the person making the argument as weight for the argument is a fallacy, which renders your entire argument as false.

Kinda went the dickhead route instead? If you two saw eye to eye, we wouldn't need the multi-billion dollar political process.

 

[SoCalDomer]

Kinda went the dickhead route instead? If you two saw eye to eye, we wouldn't need the multi-billion dollar political process.

Because I call fallacies fallacies? I don't mind someone making arguments, but don't throw around fallacies as arguments.

 

[KamaraPolice]

I don't mean to insinuate you are a dhead (because I think you're a pretty funny guy), I was just saying that was a dick move. Everyone disagrees about politics, which is why I love to hate politics so much. But it's pointless fighting about it [see: me vs. my brothers].

constructive critism, haha.

 

[SoCalDomer]

It is not my intent to argue over the issue of which political theory is right, but the ideas do fit into one category or another.

I'm uninterested in arguing the merits of socialism or any other -ism. That more than likely will bog down in personal interest/preference.

Okay, let's all :hug: and sing Cumbaya, like the good communists we are...

 

[KamaraPolice]

It is not my intent to argue over the issue of which political theory is right, but the ideas do fit into one category or another.

I'm uninterested in arguing the merits of socialism or any other -ism. That more than likely will bog down in personal interest/preference.

Okay, let's all :hug: and sing Cumbaya, like the good communists we are...

Communism is godless.



(lol, no jk)

 

[SoCalDomer]

Communism is godless.

(lol, no jk)

I walked into that one.

I have exorcised the communist demons in here, so we can all get along.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

No, it's socialism. Communism builds on what socialism accomplishes, and cannot exist without socialism. It takes the power from the centralized government established through socialism and gives it to the community unit. But socialism comes first.

This is from wiki:
Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that visualize a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation

Again, proves my point. Socialism is not simply about the redistribution of wealth...it is about a goal of increasing social and economic equality...we do that today with taxes all the time. There are varying degrees...but the sole purpose of redistribution lies within Communism.

I am firmly aware of the distinctions...that was my undergrad degree.

Had you continued with the Wiki quotation you would have posted this:

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that visualize a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1] for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by socialized (state or community) ownership of the means of production.

Which supports my point. Selectively quoting it seems to work, but finishing the paragraph is key.

Wealth redistribution = socialism.

And a wide variety of other political philosophies. Socialism is not the only one that does it. Fascists do it as well coming from the Right...but it does not make it Socialism.

Socialism and communism are spearated by small degrees along the political spectrum, but there are differences, mostly in the formof government that implements the socialist policies. Communism takes socialism and goes further.

Agreed.

See, I did that without an appeal to authority, or my degrees, such as an MBA. Referring to authority of the person making the argument as weight for the argument is a fallacy, which renders your entire argument as false.

Actually, my argument is not false at all. With Socialism the distribution of wealth and property still relies on the government control of the means of production.

That is simply not being suggested by any candidate.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Because I call fallacies fallacies? I don't mind someone making arguments, but don't throw around fallacies as arguments.

None were thrown around...well, except the part about Hillary being a Socialist.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Reagan and Bush did not lower taxes they defered them. You can only lower taxes if you do so not on the back of debt. Both cuts were funded 100% with debt. That's a deferral of payment not an elimination of it.

That's Procurement 101...I spent 5 years in that area for a Fortune100 company (after my MBA).

His tax cuts don't bring in revenue, increased productivity, population growth, and corporate profits did. Neither of which were related to the tax cuts.

Given her husband's centrist policies and her voting record over the last 6 years, there is no evidence for the boogeyman that is being created. The Hillary Clinton Socialist is a strawman that simply does not exist in reality.

I heard the same things about her husband and how he would spend us into oblivion. And then with a Democratic House and Senate at his side he REIGNED IN SPENDING like we had not see in 30+ years.

Reagan & Bush CUT taxes period. I have zero problem when spending is directed towards defense. If Jimmy Carter & Bill Clinton has slashed the military, the following Pres. wouldn't have had to spend it back up. We've had the Reagan economic pissing match before, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I do agree that the other out of control spending is unconsciable. Both sides are responsible for this...no question.

The Free Market is what drives our economy. If you don't think tax cuts play a positive role, than give it back to Uncle Sam.

I don't recall Bill being labeled a socialist & I lived under his governance a lot longer than you did. He is a politician who has been savvy enough to adjust w/ the polls. When his wife tried to socialize medicine (but she has zero socialist tendencies, right?), it cost Clinton the Dem. controlled Congress.

Say what you want about Newt & his "revolution" but he forced Bill back to the middle where his "centrist policies" came from. And we've beaten this dead horse too. Dick Morris got him to the middle. BTW, centrist is all in the eye of the beholder & varies in opinion from people on the coasts vs. people in the heartland for example.

As far as Bill having it rough, cry me a river. I know plenty of people in worst circumstances that have far more character & class than he'll ever exude. As far as I know, he's NEVER worked in the private sector. He graduated from law school, taught law at Univ. of AR and was a career politician from then on.

How can a person like that relate to the real world? That question goes to most politicians who are simply lawyers that don't want to work for a living. Run a small business, meet a payroll, bust your ass to pay your mortgage & care for your family, be a pillar in your community &/or church. I respect that over people who have to name drop & degree drop all day long. Insecurity is not an attractive feature...especially in males.

 

[Newc]

All spending done by the government is socialist in nature. All. Defense. Roads. Healthcare. All of it.

I ignore rhetoric and look at actions.

Given her husband's centrist policies and her voting record over the last 6 years, there is no evidence for the boogeyman that is being created. The Hillary Clinton Socialist is a strawman that simply does not exist in reality.

I heard the same things about her husband and how he would spend us into oblivion. And then with a Democratic House and Senate at his side he REIGNED IN SPENDING like we had not see in 30+ years.

Bill knew poverty that most can't imagine. Heck I grew up below the middle class line. I've been there. My MBA is still being paid down.

Fair share is a tricky question which no one can give a straight answer.

Is "fair" we all pay our part? Like a toll? That would be what 20k-30k in taxes each year? Flat tax? Progressive? Regressive? Sales/Consumption?

I have many thoughts on the matter, but I can't say I have one solid answer.

My simple call on this is as follows: overall tax rates should be determined by our spending. If we spend more, we pay more. If we want to pay less, we spend less. If Americans want government healthcare, they better be ready to pay. If they want more defense spending, they better be ready to pay. If they want mocha lattes every other day, they better be ready to pay.

The problem is that people are FINE with their rep bringing back the pork, but they get mad at the other guy who does.

LMI...very good post. You obviously are a very intelligent and clear thinking person. I agree with you 100% that the "socialist" stigma that has been attached to Hillary is unfounded. Like I stated in my other post she is very pro free market and capitalistic in her own personal life, however, I believe that the she has earned that stigma by over-emphasising big government, which, and most likely unfairly, has drawn the criticisms of being a socialist ideal. Ofcourse this is partisan overreaction that is seen far too much these days in D.C. I will admit that yes I am guilty of using the term socialist when describing Hillary, but I will stand strong beside my beliefs that big government is not what the American people need and yes, big government does have socialist undertones to it.

As for the 47% figure I gave the other day, Hillary was on CNBC about a month ago to go over her economic plans with Maria Bartiromo, who is damn hot by the way...I really don't mind watching her every day, but I regress (I'm really sorry I don't have a link or anything, I will try to look on CNBC.com for the video or something later, take it for what its worth but I honestly remember seeing her throw the 47% number up there and my jaw dropping to the floor, I will try my best to find evidence.). Now she did not state that the figure given was an absolute, but it was an estimation of where the funding would come from in order to provide government run social services such as health care, education and a much revised welfare program. I thought CNBC and Maria did a very good job trying to get Hillary to disclose some of the details of her plans in order to give the public a more in-depth look at what she plans to do. However, in lovely Hillary fashion, she side-stepped nearly all the hard questions, which we are used to with all presidential canidates besides good ole Ross Perot (that poor guy) yet rather mentioned how much she wanted to do during her husband's terms. I hate that by the way and think she needs to talk about what she has done in NY rather than trying to piggy-back off Bill's D.C. time.

I for one do not believe at all that Hillary will be able to institute a national health care program if she were to take office nor do I believe she will be able to get a national higher education initiative off the ground. On the other hand I doubt we will ever see a consumption tax replace our current tax system, can you imagine what all those CPA's would do?? Yikes! The sad thing is, America is in such a position in which partisan politics has become such a pitfall that and growth and progression will be very very slow and minimal in this country. And yes, you did hear that correctly, I am a steadfast republican who is open to progression...hey I'm only 24, I'm not that old and white and fat yet.

I appologize for my incredible rambling here, I just really get into politics and the economy and really love a good hearted debate with intelligent people like you LMI. This is what makes America great...this is a ND football site yet we can still have friendly chats like this about something like politics. I love it.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

None were thrown around...well, except the part about Hillary being a Socialist.

What happened to the $5000 baby bond? She trashed that pretty quickly wouldn't you say?

She's floated the national internet for everyone trial balloon, too. Who's gonna pay for that?

You do remember 1993 & her role trying to socialize healthcare? It cost Bill the Democratic controlled Congress. Of course they gave it back to the Dems, when they couldn't stop spending.

Dude, look who she's surrounding herself with? Terry McAulife & the rest of the MoveOn.org crowd. She's taken credit for helping create Media Matters, another MoveOn.org political arm disguised as a "not for profit" group. George Soros financially backs all this. He may not be a socialist w/ his money, but he damn sure wants America to be. Who do you think got Soros into the White House to meet Slick to discuss Kosovo? His buddy Hillary.

Barack & Edwards are appearing more socialistic to appeal to the left, but I doubt they're as pink as they let on. Hillary did just the opposite in the Senate. She appeared moderate & wasn't responsible for any major legislation. When she saw a popular cause, she always grabbed the mike, but it was more bandwagoning than anything. She & her co-dependant husband had plans of running for President since she was in AR.

She's not gonna broadcast her plans until she's forced to, which I imagine would be in the national debates. Obama & Edwards don't have the balls...they let their wives take shots at Hillary but they're too chickenshit or they're holding out hope to be on her cabinet.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

I agree with you 100% that the "socialist" stigma that has been attached to Hillary is unfounded. Like I stated in my other post she is very pro free market and capitalistic in her own personal life, however, I believe that the she has earned that stigma by over-emphasising big government, which, and most likely unfairly, has drawn the criticisms of being a socialist ideal. QUOTE]

Socialists are never socialists w/ their own money, just yours & mine.

Time will tell if people like me are just labeling her to scare people. However, perception is reality. Buy the rumor, sell the truth, right?

When Bill was elected in '92, there were across the board layoffs in the pharmaceutical sector. It was simply a kneejerk reaction to what they thought was coming down the pike. Whether it was true or not, perception became reality. That's just one example.

Wall Street will always react as such & not wait before it's too late. In the case above, they were thankfully wrong, but they hedged their bet....and they can always rehire. What helped the free market's cause was that Hillary tried to force socialized healthcare in one fail swoop. She learned her lesson on that one. Always do it incrementally...let it creep in.

LMI is correct, there are some aspects of gov't that are already "socialistic" as they fall outside of what our Constitution guarantees to each individual. That's not an excuse to just say "screw it" and mere the US w/ Canada & Mexico to form an EU type nation. I prefer life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Don't threaten my freedom, soverignty or free market system. Go to Europe, if one so prefers.

 

[Newc]

Reagan & Bush CUT taxes period. I have zero problem when spending is directed towards defense. If Jimmy Carter & Bill Clinton has slashed the military, the following Pres. wouldn't have had to spend it back up. We've had the Reagan economic pissing match before, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I do agree that the other out of control spending is unconsciable. Both sides are responsible for this...no question.

The Free Market is what drives our economy. If you don't think tax cuts play a positive role, than give it back to Uncle Sam.

I don't recall Bill being labeled a socialist & I lived under his governance a lot longer than you did. He is a politician who has been savvy enough to adjust w/ the polls. When his wife tried to socialize medicine (but she has zero socialist tendencies, right?), it cost Clinton the Dem. controlled Congress.

Say what you want about Newt & his "revolution" but he forced Bill back to the middle where his "centrist policies" came from. And we've beaten this dead horse too. Dick Morris got him to the middle. BTW, centrist is all in the eye of the beholder & varies in opinion from people on the coasts vs. people in the heartland for example.

As far as Bill having it rough, cry me a river. I know plenty of people in worst circumstances that have far more character & class than he'll ever exude. As far as I know, he's NEVER worked in the private sector. He graduated from law school, taught law at Univ. of AR and was a career politician from then on.

How can a person like that relate to the real world? That question goes to most politicians who are simply lawyers that don't want to work for a living. Run a small business, meet a payroll, bust your ass to pay your mortgage & care for your family, be a pillar in your community &/or church. I respect that over people who have to name drop & degree drop all day long. Insecurity is not an attractive feature...especially in males.

Reganomics baby!!! I will support that till the day I die. Trickle down works in every sigle facet of life, so why would it not work in the world of economics? Take consumer confidence for instance, which is one of the biggest driving factors in our economy (crazy how emotion has so much bearing on something that is so fundamentally based). As long as money is being spent, jobs are humming and the wealthy continue to open the wallet the entire American economy and subsequently the American people prosper. Now, you look at times of tightening and the wealthy decide to throw their money into bonds, gold, foreign currencies, this is when we see job loss and decreased growth...I think we all can agree that something no one wants to see.


And by the way, Bill did have it rough. Come on, you can't honestly and rationally tell me that you can't pity a guy who would smoke a cigar after he stuck it into Monica's....oh well you know what nevermind....poor guy, I just hope that one day all American's can build themselves into the model citizen like Bill has become, defying all the odds and getting to smoke their very own bodily fluid soaked cigar. Its kinda like that pie in the sky ideal, if only the Jefferson's had know it wasn't a deluxe apartment but rather a cigar.

 

[Newc]

What happened to the $5000 baby bond? She trashed that pretty quickly wouldn't you say?

She's floated the national internet for everyone trial balloon, too. Who's gonna pay for that?

You do remember 1993 & her role trying to socialize healthcare? It cost Bill the Democratic controlled Congress. Of course they gave it back to the Dems, when they couldn't stop spending.

Dude, look who she's surrounding herself with? Terry McAulife & the rest of the MoveOn.org crowd. She's taken credit for helping create Media Matters, another MoveOn.org political arm disguised as a "not for profit" group. George Soros financially backs all this. He may not be a socialist w/ his money, but he damn sure wants America to be. Who do you think got Soros into the White House to meet Slick to discuss Kosovo? His buddy Hillary.

Barack & Edwards are appearing more socialistic to appeal to the left, but I doubt they're as pink as they let on. Hillary did just the opposite in the Senate. She appeared moderate & wasn't responsible for any major legislation. When she saw a popular cause, she always grabbed the mike, but it was more bandwagoning than anything. She & her co-dependant husband had plans of running for President since she was in AR.

She's not gonna broadcast her plans until she's forced to, which I imagine would be in the national debates. Obama & Edwards don't have the balls...they let their wives take shots at Hillary but they're too chickenshit or they're holding out hope to be on her cabinet.

Dead on!!!! You are so right here. I know all politicians do this to a point, but it seems like Hillary is making jumping on the oppurtunity her platform. Kind of a, look what I did when this was popular kind of deal. Its even more evident in here comments about voting for the war...TWICE. Once to go to war against Iraq and a second time to increase funding and troops. Then after the whole "We're American and we'll defend ourselves to the death" euphoria wore off she comes out and says, yes I voted in support twice but I didn't vote for the way it was handled. Well sweetheart, don't we all wish we could have our cake and eat it too?? And why do we hear about this after the public outcry and not before, pure politics my friends, not because politicians have the best intentions for their public but rather the best intentions for their careers.

 

[SoCalDomer]

That's Procurement 101...I spent 5 years in that area for a Fortune100 company (after my MBA).

I am firmly aware of the distinctions...that was my undergrad degree.

None were thrown around...well, except the part about Hillary being a Socialist.

Right before you claim not to have committed a fallacy, you commit a fallacy. Click the links I posted on what an appeal to authority fallacy is. Your degrees do not make you argument correct; that's where the fallacy comes in. Stop doing that, and I can live with the disagreement.

But back to your original point that I took issue with:

All spending done by the government is socialist in nature. All. Defense. Roads. Healthcare. All of it.

The preamble to the Constitution, written before modern Socialism and Communism were developed, states: "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare..." If all government spending equals socialism, then our founding fathers were socialsist? No, they were not. Socialism as a political idea began after the founding of of our government.

The appearance of the term "socialism" is variously attributed to Pierre Leroux in 1834,[8] or to Marie Roch Louis Reybaud in France, or else in England to Robert Owen, who is considered the father of the cooperative movement.[9]

The first modern socialists were early 19th century Western European social critics.

Again, proves my point. Socialism is not simply about the redistribution of wealth...it is about a goal of increasing social and economic equality

And how does Socialism accomplish that goal of increasing social and economic equality? Through the redistribution of wealth.

There are varying degrees...but the sole purpose of redistribution lies within Communism.

Yes, a major purpose of Communism is the redistribution of wealth. But that doesn't make every political thought that espouses redistribution of wealth communist.

In order to arrive at Communism, you have to go through Socialism. Are we a socialist government? No, therefore anyone espousing ideas intended to redistribute wealth are taking us toward a Socialist government. It may be that their ultimate intention is Communism, but that change cannot be made instantaneously.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Reagan & Bush CUT taxes period.

They deferred them. Debt was issued in place of it.

It's like buying a car on a loan and saying you got a raise.

I have zero problem when spending is directed towards defense. If Jimmy Carter & Bill Clinton has slashed the military

Carter did not cut it. Nixon and Ford did though. Reagan took it to new heights though...at least for non-wartime.
Annual Military Spending from 1945 to 1996

I do agree that the other out of control spending is unconsciable. Both sides are responsible for this...no question.

Given that the Dems were unable to add riders or proposed spending bills from 2000-2006, no...both sides were not responsible. Just one side.

The Free Market is what drives our economy. If you don't think tax cuts play a positive role, than give it back to Uncle Sam.

I never said tax cuts were not good. UNFUNDED tax cuts are simply deferred payments that accrue interest. That's not a cut. That's simply uppping the cost and passing it down the line.

A cut is only a cut when it's PAID for. Either with spending cuts or spending caps. The recent round of "cuts" were not paid for, thus they were deferments. Increased debt of course leads to a weaking of the dollar...which can lead to increased inflation...yadda, yadda..

I don't recall Bill being labeled a socialist & I lived under his governance a lot longer than you did.

Really? I remember him being called a socialist a lot. I can't remember where or by whom... Oh wait.
Amazon.com: Reviews for See, I Told You So: Books: Rush Limbaugh

Milton Friedman too:
"Socialism guides our behavior...In practice, we keep moving down the Socialist road...In fact, we are more than half Socialist today, that is, more than half the total output of the country is being distributed in a way that is determined by the government (including regulations)...Bill Clinton is a Socialist, defined as somebody who believes that the way to achieve good things is to have government do it. You can't think of a more Socialist program than the health care program that he tried to get us to adopt." Milton Friedman, (C-Span), November 20, 1994

As far as Bill having it rough, cry me a river. I know plenty of people in worst circumstances that have far more character & class than he'll ever exude.

I never said he had class...I said he knew what it was like to pull himself up on his own.

As far as I know, he's NEVER worked in the private sector. He graduated from law school, taught law at Univ. of AR and was a career politician from then on.

He did not. His wife did.

How can a person like that relate to the real world?

I ask the same question about every VP of my former company who makes millions. They have no clue, yet people seem to think business people know more than others.

We go to work. We get paid. We live our lives. Not everyone follows the same path.

My mom is an ER Doc. She's a 5th generation doctor. My sisters are both in Med school. They too will end up being well to do Docs. My dad was involved in politics for years. If you were to ask me which one of them knows what it's like to live and work hard...and pull yourself up. My dad for sure.

As a politician his constituents were around all the time. He spent hours working through their problems. As a politician (lower level...not President or Senator) you end up having more contact with REAL people than many many other people do.

Now he owns his own business and has a bunch of guys working for him (they sell servers and workstations)... His time in politics served him well since he knows the rigors needed to get stuff done. It's far easier running a business than being a politician. The hours are better as is the money.

That question goes to most politicians who are simply lawyers that don't want to work for a living. Run a small business, meet a payroll, bust your ass to pay your mortgage & care for your family, be a pillar in your community &/or church. I respect that over people who have to name drop & degree drop all day long. Insecurity is not an attractive feature...especially in males.

Most politicians have done all you state above...

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

The preamble to the Constitution, written before modern Socialism and Communism were developed, states: "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare..." If all government spending equals socialism, then our founding fathers were socialsist? No, they were not. Socialism as a political idea began after the founding of of our government.

Socialism as a coherent socio-economic philosophy began almost 100 years later. But the actions speak for themselves. It's not wrong...it's just our political philosophy. We believe in the ideals they stated in the Preamble. Many draw the line in different places.

I am not big on a lot of big government programs, but I am sure my lines are different than yours.

- I would not spend $55Million for an Amazon Rain Forest Bio-Dome in Iowa...thank Chuck Grassley (R-Ia) for that one.
- Fisheries in Tennessee would not get War Funding from me.
- No Child Left Behind? I would have left it behind.

I do believe the government should spend money in certain areas...maybe a lot of $$$.

- I would ensure that children in America have basic healthcare taken care of. Immunizations, check-ups, etc. Getting people to visit the ER less and a clinic more saves money in the end, but costs some up front.
- I support the FDA in it's efforts to make medicine safe, but I would not support a Nationalization of the Pharm industry.
- I like roads, big wide highways...gleaming concrete coast to coast
- More money for border patrol agents.
- I like the SEC...they keep our financial markets the most trusted in the world.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

It's like buying a car on a loan and saying you got a raise.

That makes no sense. Please tell me you've never heard anyone use this logic.


Given that the Dems were unable to add riders or proposed spending bills from 2000-2006, no...both sides were not responsible. Just one side.

IF you only go back to 2000. You act like Dems have never passed pork. What happened to the Democratic controlled Congress that promised reform? How does an 11% approval rating & continued attempts to score earmarks strike you?

I never said tax cuts were not good. UNFUNDED tax cuts are simply deferred payments that accrue interest. That's not a cut. That's simply uppping the cost and passing it down the line.

A cut is only a cut when it's PAID for. Either with spending cuts or spending caps. The recent round of "cuts" were not paid for, thus they were deferments. Increased debt of course leads to a weaking of the dollar...which can lead to increased inflation...yadda, yadda..

That's your opinion. Yeah, it COULD lead to that. And Notre Dame COULD blow out their next four opponents. In a perfect world, the next Pres. would repeal all the non-military spending that Bush signed off on & extend his tax cuts. I know that's not realistic, but a man can dream. Tax cuts stimulate the economy, incr. productivity & give people more money to spend. You & others can argue otherwise; but there's just as many people who believe they work. One side won't convince the other that it's wrong. Agree to disagree.

Reagan went against his initial goal of decreasing both spending & taxes b/c he had to cut a deal w/ Tip O'Neil when it came to getting the military spending he felt he needed to compete vs. the USSR. You may disagree w/ his motives. I tend to follow one of his many quotes in this matter, "Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about b/c the U.S. was too strong."

Really? I remember him being called a socialist a lot. I can't remember where or by whom... Oh wait.
Amazon.com: Reviews for See, I Told You So: Books: Rush Limbaugh

Milton Friedman too:
"Socialism guides our behavior...In practice, we keep moving down the Socialist road...In fact, we are more than half Socialist today, that is, more than half the total output of the country is being distributed in a way that is determined by the government (including regulations)...Bill Clinton is a Socialist, defined as somebody who believes that the way to achieve good things is to have government do it. You can't think of a more Socialist program than the health care program that he tried to get us to adopt." Milton Friedman, (C-Span), November 20, 1994

You pay more attention to Rush than I do...that's funny. I said that I had never heard him labeled as a socialist, I can assure you I wasn't reading Limbaugh or Friedman in '92-'93. I was finishing up college. In other words, not in the real world yet. It is hard to argue w/ Friedman. He's more accomplished in econ. than you or me. He just labeled the wrong Clinton when talking about socializing healthcare. And the splitting hairs on the official definition of "socialism"...that's a little much.

I never said he had class...I said he knew what it was like to pull himself up on his own.

Oh yeah, he's a self-made man alright. I know prison inmates who have "pulled themselves up" better than he did.[

He did not. His wife did.

Rose Law Firm. I know it all too well.

My mom is an ER Doc. She's a 5th generation doctor. My sisters are both in Med school. They too will end up being well to do Docs.

This is where I'm confused. You said you were below middle income class growing up yet your mother is a physician & your dad was a politician. We are pretty much the same age (you were born around '70 right?) & grew up in the '70s & '80s. With that in mind, what do you consider as middle income class for that era?

As a politician his constituents were around all the time. He spent hours working through their problems. As a politician (lower level...not President or Senator) you end up having more contact with REAL people than many many other people do.
Now he owns his own business and has a bunch of guys working for him (they sell servers and workstations)... His time in politics served him well since he knows the rigors needed to get stuff done. It's far easier running a business than being a politician. The hours are better as is the money.

This is all anecdotal & opinion...not that there's anything wrong w/ that. I know some politicians on the state level as well & get just the opposite feedback. It's not difficult once they learn the game. THe general public is ignorant of the inner workings. Again, that's my perspective & others opinion. There's no crime in having different opinions.

Most politicians have done all you state above...

Again, that's based on your experience & opinion.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Socialism as a coherent socio-economic philosophy began almost 100 years later. But the actions speak for themselves. It's not wrong...it's just our political philosophy. We believe in the ideals they stated in the Preamble. Many draw the line in different places.

I am not big on a lot of big government programs, but I am sure my lines are different than yours.

- I would not spend $55Million for an Amazon Rain Forest Bio-Dome in Iowa...thank Chuck Grassley (R-Ia) for that one.
- Fisheries in Tennessee would not get War Funding from me.
- No Child Left Behind? I would have left it behind.

I do believe the government should spend money in certain areas...maybe a lot of $$$.

- I would ensure that children in America have basic healthcare taken care of. Immunizations, check-ups, etc. Getting people to visit the ER less and a clinic more saves money in the end, but costs some up front.
- I support the FDA in it's efforts to make medicine safe, but I would not support a Nationalization of the Pharm industry.
- I like roads, big wide highways...gleaming concrete coast to coast
- More money for border patrol agents.
- I like the SEC...they keep our financial markets the most trusted in the world.

Now you're talking. I agree.

Are you ready for the largest tax increase in the history of the U.S.? Read the link. So much for "pay as you go" fiscal responsibility.

TheHill.com - GOP calls Rangel tax plan a ‘gift’

 

[IRISHDODGER]

None were thrown around...well, except the part about Hillary being a Socialist.

This is admittedly, speculation; but interesting none the less.

TheHill.com - The Democrats’ hidden tax plans

I should have clarified earlier that this is the perception of her...and in most cases, perception is reality. You may be able to afford waiting to judge her by her actions. Others don't have that luxury. Buy the rumor, sell the truth.

Wall Street & US corporations will brace themselves for the worst. They can always re-hire after initially laying off. It's the perception of what a pol. like her would do. If you think she's gonna raise the capital gains tax, you better damn well plan for it b/c it'll be retroactive to the day it was signed.

The early bird gets the worm. If the bird ends up needlessly being early...it still gets the worm.

 

[kjones]

He has very little chance of winning the nomination, but this whole discussion is why I like Ron Paul. He the only candidate I see who actually promotes LESS bureaucracy as the way to solve many of our economic problems (re: colossal deficit) and while I'm not sure how well all his ideas would work in practice, it seems like they would be a step in the right direction. I also like how he thinks we could actually abide by the Constitution and actually be all right.

edit: he also has little chance of winning if he does manage to get the nomination methinks.

 

[Newc]

Haha Ron Paul cracks me up in all the debates.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I wish Ron Paul (having two first names is lame) would decide to run as an independent...he clearly belongs OUT of the Republican party.

 

[KamaraPolice]

Ron Paul has some interesting ideas, like abolishing the federal reserve :jawdrop:

 

[IRISHDODGER]

He has very little chance of winning the nomination, but this whole discussion is why I like Ron Paul. He the only candidate I see who actually promotes LESS bureaucracy as the way to solve many of our economic problems (re: colossal deficit) and while I'm not sure how well all his ideas would work in practice, it seems like they would be a step in the right direction. I also like how he thinks we could actually abide by the Constitution and actually be all right.

edit: he also has little chance of winning if he does manage to get the nomination methinks.

His 9-11 conspiracy claim forever branded him as a kook.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

As it did for many professors and actors.

 

[kjones]

His 9-11 conspiracy claim forever branded him as a kook.

Didn't know about this one. Kook indeed.

Think you could find it for me though?

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Didn't know about this one. Kook indeed.

Think you could find it for me though?

I would suggest googling Ron Paul and 9/11 and make your own judgement. Some of his supporters are known as 9/11 Truthers. They believe the gov't knowingly allowed 9/11 to occur. They typically can be heard chanting, "9/11 was an inside job!".

Ron Paul seems to be a Constituionalist to the core. He's one of the few politicians who have not buckled under the pressure of lobbyists, trading votes, & getting re-elected. He ran as a Libertarian (though still a Republican) in the '88 Presidential election. He finished a distant 3rd to Bush & Dukakis. He remains in good standing w/ the Libertarian Party.

I'm not sure if he said something controversial about 9/11 that was later taken out of context or if he really said it was "an inside job", but the damage has been done as it led to the label I referred to.